As Byron York noted last night, Mitt Romney used his victory speech yesterday to join President Obama in a debate over which candidate can best honor how Americans value “fairness.” AEI President Arthur Brooks presciently previewed this battle in a Washington Examiner column earlier this month:
For some months now, President Obama has increasingly been couching his rhetoric in the language of fairness.
He used the word “fair” 14 times in his December speech in Osawatomie, Kan., where he implored us to “restore fairness.” He demanded tax reform that “makes sure everybody pays their fair share.” And it is only his policy proposals that ensure “everyone engages in fair play and everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share.”
From his proposed tax hike on high-income households — the so-called Buffett Rule — to health care reform efforts, the president has defined fairness largely in terms of government income redistribution. He has also set out to paint his political opponents as, at best, uninterested in fairness and, at worst, committed to making society less fair.
For months, free-market policymakers seemed willing to concede this term, preferring to argue against Obama’s policies on the grounds of economic efficiency and constitutional first principles. No longer.
He used the word “fair” 14 times in his December speech in Osawatomie, Kan., where he implored us to “restore fairness.” He demanded tax reform that “makes sure everybody pays their fair share.” And it is only his policy proposals that ensure “everyone engages in fair play and everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share.”
From his proposed tax hike on high-income households — the so-called Buffett Rule — to health care reform efforts, the president has defined fairness largely in terms of government income redistribution. He has also set out to paint his political opponents as, at best, uninterested in fairness and, at worst, committed to making society less fair.
For months, free-market policymakers seemed willing to concede this term, preferring to argue against Obama’s policies on the grounds of economic efficiency and constitutional first principles. No longer.
Stay informed.Stay ahead.
Join Washington Examiner for unlimited access to the news, analysis, and commentary that matter most.
See Options
Already a member? Log in
Already a print subscriber? Click here to login/register your account
